Mike O'Briens's new response to high priced Mount skins

[Aeolus.3615]

> @Bunter.3795 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Greyraven.4258 said:

> > > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

> >

> > The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

> >

> > Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

>

> Please get your math right, 2,000 gems is $25.00. Always has been since the game launched.

 

Other mmo's skins and outfits are arround that price as well, i think it feels weak cause the skin selection isnt that great for what ive seen it, but for sure Anet will increase it overtime.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @Aeolus.3615 said:

> > @Bunter.3795 said:

> > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > > @Greyraven.4258 said:

> > > > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

> > >

> > > The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

> > >

> > > Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

> >

> > Please get your math right, 2,000 gems is $25.00. Always has been since the game launched.

>

> Other mmo's skins and outfits are arround that price as well, i think it feels weak cause the skin selection isnt that great for what ive seen it, but for sure Anet will increase it overtime.

 

Yes, Some mounts in other MMOs are at this price range. BUT all of those MMOs (WoW, FF, Wildstar, etc) offer 10x more mounts as in-game rewards than premium store ones. Guildwars offers 1 in-game mount of each type. So at current numbers that would be 5/37, so roughly ~1/7.

By all means, if they start dropping outfits, gliders and mount skins in significant numbers as in-game rewards (not black lion chests) i'll buy mounts at 50€ each if they're cool enough. Because that will mean they can't just drop a single mount that is the love child of a peacock and a lizard and call it 25€. The premium mounts would have to be **premium**.

[Ashen.2907]

> @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > @Asum.4960 said:

> > You also completely disregard that a lower price means more units sold (again, at no additional cost, unlike material goods).

>

> I'm not going to bother addressing anything else. I don't have the time. But this...this line is an _assumption_. Which the reality of may or may not be true. We have nothing to back this up though. No trends for gemstore sales on which to base anything. Based on _other_ things, based on our own actions, and so on we assume that it would sell more if it were a lower cost, and that _isn't_ necessarily true. Being a lower price doesn't make someone like it more, for example. So that person isn't going to buy it regardless.

 

To be fair, it is a very solid assumption that the mount would sell more if the price were lower.

 

However, would it sell enough to offset the loss of revenue caused by the lower price? Would it sell enough to offset the cost of development? Would it sell enough to offset the item's portion of other development costs (keep in mind that the skin is expected to not only pay for itself but to also pay for otherx and ongoing, game development)?

 

We do not know, and neither does the poster claiming that the skin would be profitable at 20 cents each.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Asum.4960 said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > I love these arguments.

> >

> > There are so many other costs involved, it's not so easy to just assume. So what is stopping someone else from copying your candle cover design and making money off of it? You gonna trademark it? What if someone already copied it, you gonna sue? What if someone accuses you of copying them, are you going to defend yourself? How about distribution? Do you ship your magically infinite candle covers? Or do you have some sort of website that you use to distribute them? Packaging? How about advertisement?

> >

> > You can assume it's greed but unless you've got the books in front of you, how can you tell? Again, you can thank your lucky stars that Wildstar exists so that GW2 isn't the 1st choice on the chopping block.

>

> How does that translate into the digital economy in a game? Nobody can just copy a GW2 mount and sell it GW2 as well.

> What you are saying is, that gamedevs are in an even better spot than someone with a infinite product they only have to create once to sell forever.

> They also have complete control of the economy the product is in and no competition or copycats while also completely lacking distribution costs.

>

> Microtransactions are better than a literal goldmine, even without Lootboxes and bloated prices.

>

> Your post is worded in a way as to refute my arguments while doing the arguing for me, which is kind of confusing (I can't tell if you were being sarcastic).

 

The point is that what costs for creation, distribution and upkeep may or may not be static. My examples were specific to your example. Do I have to offer examples for GW2? I would hope you could extrapolate other costs and overhead that could possibly get in the way of charging the equivalent of 20cents (your example there) for an item in the gem store.

 

PS: I would also emphasize the last part of my post. Their earnings have to achieve a standard set by NCSoft and do so within a given period of time. Small amounts of income from low priced items may help over an entire year, but they could be looking at projected sales within a given quarter or less as well as the entire year *as well* as several years down the road.

[TheOrlyFactor.8341]

There are things in the Gem Store I'm certainly willing to shell out 2000+ gems on. Those things are convenience/quality-of-life items like harvesting tools (especially Unbound Magic Harvesting Tools), character slots, bank slots, inventory slots, etc. In a way, MO's already getting that kind of money out of me.

 

I also occasionally buy gems to convert to gold so that's another way MO gets 2000 or more gems from me.

 

However, I'm not willing to shell out more than 1000 gems for just one mount skin, outfit, or anything cosmetic. Not happening. I'm not their target demographic in that regard and I'm okay with that. I'm not gonna bash anyone who wants to do that though. What other people do with their money/gems is their business.

 

I just hope that MO ain't putting all of his eggs in one basket and banking on mount skins to fund the game. Like I said, there's things and ways to get me to spend 2000+ gems on the game. For me, it's not cosmetic items.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Asum.4960 said:

> It really comes down to this. We simply don't have the numbers, so both sides of the argument can only speculate.

> Was PoF a Loss-Leader or did it rake in thousands in profit? How much staying power will the product have in continuous sales?

> Is the Gemstore declining, if so why?

> Is it the lack of actual microtransactions for impulse buyers, or do we need more whale baits?

> And which of the two is better for the games ingame economy and community long term?

>

> At the end of the day, I'm not pretending to know all the answers, especially without having access to the data.

> I'm just sharing my convictions and assumptions based on what I do know in the hopes of inspiring some people to look at the situation from a different angle, or come up with their own by engaging them in a discussion, which could in turn feed into and inspire my view.

>

> I'm just not onboard with the starving game dev because game's are so expensive which runs contrary to everything we observe in the growing games industry.

 

Just speculating on my part, but don't microtransation games sometimes have those whale options for huge costs? If you have whales willing to spend a lot of money on stuff, shouldn't you give them something to spend it on? I'd say it's a dilemma, like a millionaire walking into a dollar store compared to a millionaire walking into a Walmart; neither is ideal (GW2 isn't fit for the whale type, IMO) but one does have things you can spend several thousands on vs buying 1 of everything and still not breaking 1k.

 

From my perspective, it seems Anet also utilizes time/availability as a value measure (like how LS episodes must be purchased if you didn't log in before the next release...or something like that). They could quite possibly be using early access for mount skins now, charging a premium for them or at the very least, waiting to offer cheaper options or bundles until after the demand for them simmers down.

[MokahTGS.7850]

While this response makes sense, it is sad IMO. Sad that ANet is driven to this system and sad that people have a warped sense of value that supports this system. You might disagree with my opinion, but this is how I feel. I will vote with my wallet just as I always have and don't really buy into the peddled guilt of statements like "We're all in this together." You are a business and I am a customer. I will buy your product if I feel it's a good value for the price. The current scale of mount skins costing $30 is not a good value for me to buy it. So my data will land with those customers who don't buy the big flashy skins.

[Rezzet.3614]

I havent checked mount skin prices but the way i see it if its a recolor then 400 gems for recolor is ok if its a fully made skin with unique particles sounds and animations then sure 2000 gems is fair, your basically gettin a new mount

[Rococo.8347]

I know some people clutch their pearls when people start talking about qualitative data and get all angry and start yelling about 'people making assumptions!' but that sort of data can have a lot of truth to it...its certainly given respect in many social sciences.

 

Ever since the mounts came out I have seen two of the expensive mounts - im sat at Lions Arch, and all the other major cities, plus the pvp area, im also usually at whatever map is the current daily events, I do world bosses.

 

Conversely EVERY time a new glider came out I saw them everywhere - so im having a hard time believing that Mo has this right on the whole, 'glitzy expensive ones make us cash money' especially when he states that they 'have the stats' - when in reality they don't, not for 2000 gem mounts because he stated this only just after the first mount of that type - he may have OTHER stats if 'similar prestige' type items but he does not have the stats for this type of sale.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Rococo.8347 said:

> I know some people clutch their pearls when people start talking about qualitative data and get all angry and start yelling about 'people making assumptions!' but that sort of data can have a lot of truth to it...its certainly given respect in many social sciences.

>

> Ever since the mounts came out I have seen two of the expensive mounts - im sat at Lions Arch, and all the other major cities, plus the pvp area, im also usually at whatever map is the current daily events, I do world bosses.

>

> Conversely EVERY time a new glider came out I saw them everywhere - so im having a hard time believing that Mo has this right on the whole, 'glitzy expensive ones make us cash money' especially when he states that they 'have the stats' - when in reality they don't, not for 2000 gem mounts because he stated this only just after the first mount of that type - he may have OTHER stats if 'similar prestige' type items but he does not have the stats for this type of sale.

 

It's also possible that things are skewed because they've only released 2 of the premium mounts. What people ride on in LA may just be their preferred mount which just may not be either jackal or raptor.

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

You want content. This is a necessary evil to keep the game alive. This is what is giving us content and great content at that. 2000 gems is too much then don't buy it. These purchases does not give an edge to anyone. It's simply cosmetic. Does that 2000 mount skin affect your game at all. NO. I want a Cadillac but can only afford a Honda who do I complain to about that.

[KeoLegend.5132]

You guys love to complain hungry while having the stomach full of food....

GW2 model is the best there is. Just because they put a gamble on a cosmetic stuff isn't the reason to curse the devs

[starlinvf.1358]

> @Tekoneiric.6817 said:

> I don't understand why they aren't pushing the GW universe towards other media forms; books, movies or maybe even a Game of Thrones like series. The TV and movie industry is starved for fresh content. It would help them pay for keeping the games running without charging excessive prices for gem store items. They could use the game engine to story board it to market the media rights.

 

Thats a whole major discussion in of itself. The main thing lost on audiences is how difficult it is to translate a story from one medium into another. The movie industry has the biggest problem with this, because much of their source material comes from books and screenplays, which are all written formats. But Cinema language is built on visuals, and movies have extremely tight time limitation. TV shows can span seasons, but their rate of material burn is really inconsistent (just see any popular series after AMC saw success with the Walking Dead). Consider how there has been extremely few "good" adaptations of video games to either TV or Movies, but has seen some success as books.

 

The reasons used to explain this are as numerous as there are adaptions...... but there are 3 examples I feel most heavily exemplify why this is hard.

 

The Shining- King vs Kubrick

The Shining is one of Kings better novels, but the themes and method of story telling only really work within the realm of books. This is very evident in the fact that if you read excepts from the book, and then watch the scene from Mark Garrmis's mini-series adaptation, only to feel a level of dissonance between what you see and what you imagined while reading the book excerpt. The mini-series sought to be faithful to the book, so there is a great deal of exposition thats normally considered superfluous for visual mediums.

Kubrick's version takes the setting, but intelligently changes everything else with the sole intent of making it as psychologically unsettling as possible. He accomplished this by leveraging every bit of technical prowess he has as a director, to alter the perception of space, time, awareness and environmental cue he could think of to put pressure on the audience on a subconscious level. If you haven't, you should look up a "making of" video about the movie. The sheer attention to details, and reasoning behind so many decisions, is both fascinating and a little unnerving. The results speak for itself though. Despite its age, it still holds up well as a first experience; and rewatching it, you begin to notice more and more things your mind missed the first few times through it. What makes it work so well, is that even with knowledge of the tropes it spawned, it can only be comprehended as an experience.

 

A Story of a Throne's Game.

If you're avid GoT fan, you're well aware of 2 things. 1. They tried to stick to the books plot points as best as possible, but is still clearly altered in detail and meaning to better fit the TV series format is produced for. 2. When they ran out of Book to follow, the series went completely off the rails.

This shows the major difference in the mind set of how the Book's author approaches a story, and how a TV writer's staff approaches a story. One of the most noticeable shifts is how, despite knowing the direction to take toward Martin's intended conclusion, the entire tone of the show went from methodical political power plays to just straight up balls to the walls action set pieces. Character motivations went almost completely out the window, and their characterizations started to feel stunted and almost robotic. As best as I can tell, and heard described, the shows writing staff was mostly there to trim exposition and "action up" the script, to make it more visually exciting.... and even from early on they succeeded at that goal. But if you also read the book, you're probably disappointed with the lack of introspection and poor exploration of the characters; with the TV show being almost cartoonish with how it favors flamboyant outbursts of violence, and how the character personalities are setup like they're designed to be organized in a top 10 list.

As high quality as the adaptation was, its still arguable thats its a completely different story. And if you aren't able to accept that, then you've probably gotten into a lot of arguments with people about what they like about the popular characters.

 

 

Ghost in the Shell, Stand Alone Complex, and the 2017 Remake.

Ghost in the Shell is unusual in that across all the mediums its been adapted to, each one is uniquely tailored to, and successful in taking advantage of each medium's strengths. I only have passing knowledge of the Manga, but its described as calling into question and exploring the philosophical and sociological ramifications of a cyber augmented civilization. This type of approach of questioning, or even challenging social norms or beliefs was actually pretty normal at the time for japanese manga; gaining much of its attention from its art style and presentation.

The first movie is almost a total departure from the presentation of the Manga, and instead is crafted to be sensory experience, amplified by the odd isolation felt in the darkness of a populated theater. Not a lot here I can say thats not already known.... but the movie presents a question that itself can not answer, and makes every effort to give the audience a sensation of having mind and body disconnected- allowing them to explore that idea as the movie progresses.

Stand Alone Complex is yet another departure from its predecessors, taking the form of a political/detective drama. It leverages the franchise's setting to explore individual questions and scenarios that are the result of human cyberiazation, its impact on society, and the affect it has on both individuals and groups. Where the movie had a feeling disconnection and isolation, the TV series felt incredibly grounded, and used its episodic format to explore each question in relative isolation.

The 2017 remake attempted to mimic the first movie's presentation as live action, while grounding it more for a modern audience. But in the process of doing so, had failed to accomplish either. That said, if taken in isolation, its a pretty standard action movie with a much loftier theme..... but not particularly bad. And a question worth asking, and somewhat telling with many recent remakes..... if the same movie was made without the name attached to it, would it still be worth watching? Oddly enough, most would be just as something of a typical experience. But if you ask "what does it challenge?", that becomes a much harder question to answer. One that tends to make things largely forgettable, aside from the comparisons drawn to its more distinctive influences.

 

 

We have books, so that already has an answer. But if you were to make a movie about Guildwars, what would it be about? And what would you want it to convey to the audience? Consider the WarCraft movie with those same questions, compared to how it actually shaped up.

[Ardid.7203]

The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced the problem is whales only buy really exclusive stuff.

Please, Anet, put the barefoot boot skins at 5000 gems in the store and prove me right.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @KeoLegend.5132 said:

> You guys love to complain hungry while having the stomach full of food....

> GW2 model is the best there is. Just because they put a gamble on a cosmetic stuff isn't the reason to curse the devs

 

No one's cursing...

You're right it has had, so far, a great model. But recent decisions have put that to the test, and changed it the opposite direction.

If we don't speak up now, the problem will probably escalate, and then we'll be inquiring why are the P2W items in the Gemstore.

[Gabbynot.2654]

2000 gem's is not a micro transaction at all . not even 1000 gems is a micro transaction in my book . next two quarters will be very telling . thanks mo for being a major disappointment yet again

[Obtena.7952]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Greyraven.4258 said:

> > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

>

> The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

>

> Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

 

yes ... reasons and if you can't be honest as to what those reasons could be that determine that price, you aren't fit to ask the question in the first place.

 

> @PopeUrban.2578 said:

> Translation:

>

> **"We understand that you, our customer base, does not think we are providing you products you want at a price you want to pay for them. In stead of changing our business strategy to address customer concerns, let me tell you why you're wrong, and why we're using a free to play business model while still locking content behind a series of paywalls."**

>

> Here's the thing MO. This reliance on microtransactions is self imposed. It is a system that failed you so spectacularly that you had to start supplementing it with paid content updates in the form of expansions. Then you released a lightweight expansion that you finished later after nickel and diming a minority of your player base. Then you did it again.

 

See, there is something you don't recognize .. .this approach seems to be working for them as a business model. Aside from the sensational subjectivity you sprinkled in, you nailed it. Yes, it's a self-imposed ... in otherwords, yes, they choose this business model. The adjusted that business model ... they will continue to adjust it. Why does that business model need to be static? You seem to forget this game is just a fancy way to part players from their money. Anet will change the business model and set pricing to whatever they see fit to do that ... Your kind of people don't seem to get that it's in Anet's best interest to offer a business model that continues to part players from their money ... so when they set a price, they aren't be 'dishonest' about it ... it's actually the price they need to set for it based on their business model to work. We have lots of examples where Anet adjusted that model; their willingness to do that is the only reason this game still exists today.

 

The whole reason this model works is because it self-regulates. People are saying we need to 'speak up or the problem will escalate'. That's silly. That implies that players know Anet's business and how they run it better than they Anet does ... that's just arrogant nonsense. Anet used to sell armor sets for 800 gems. They stopped because they couldn't continue offering that item at that price. Players didn't step in and say "hey Anet, this pricing isn't going to work for you".

[jamesg.7128]

This is an interesting read and relevant to the discussion -

[https://kotaku.com.au/2017/11/meet-the-19-year-old-who-spent-over-17000-on-microtransactions/](https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/meet-the-19-year-old-who-spent-over-17000-on-microtransactions/ "https://kotaku.com.au/2017/11/meet-the-19-year-old-who-spent-over-17000-on-microtransactions/")

[Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921]

My paragraph responses are meant as an evaluation of the statement not dismissal of what is said.

> Hi,

>

> As I wrote in my previous response, it’s been a wonderful challenge to support all Living World and Live content development for a game of this size, for five years and counting, purely through the sale of optional microtransactions. We laid out our guiding principles for GW2 microtransactions in March 2012 and we've held true to them ever since. My motivation is to continue to stay true to those principles while also continuing to fund Live content development. I recently apologized for our missteps with the Mount Adoption License. Still, mount skins are purely cosmetic, thus in many ways an ideal embodiment of our goal to support the game with optional microtransactions.

>

> Most of us have two relationships with the GW2 gem store. One relationship is that of a customer: we purchase things when we want them for ourselves and agree with how they’re bundled and priced. Another relationship is that of an interested party: we know that ArenaNet funds Live development through the sale of gems for cash, and we enjoy playing new content like today’s release, so we hope that the gem store does well enough to keep supporting content development. We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy.

>

> Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales. Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game.

I'm going to point out that in his post defending the mount licenses he did say that each mount was a quality work. So where they done poorly or good? I will side with the devs on this and say they were what was ready for retail aka the gem store at the time of the 30 mount drop. If they'd scrapped the RNG they would have sold a ton at 400 gems a piece and no backlash (yes I know hindsight is 20/20, though I was saying this when the drama started). I will firmly defend the price just not the RNG.

>

> GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game. It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. I love our current pace of content development and I hope we can support it for a long time to come.

So if I have this correct they are having trouble making content so they need the gem store to sell more? Hmmm... They had the longest development time for PoF, yet produced less overall content than hot's basic maps and meta. So if you want to sell more, make themes like the spooky set, but allow an individual purchase option for the skins for those on a budget. Even in DLC content there's usually tiers so players don't have to spend a lot to contribute. It's the reason fast food actually makes more money than your mid range restaurants.

>

> We’re all in this together. It’s obvious in your posts that you’re thoughtful and motivated to see the game do well. You balance between loving the game and not always agreeing with how gem store items are bundled or priced. That’s fair. We have a commerce team that lives that dilemma every day. We’re all doing our best for the long-term health of the game.

I have no doubt you do. But even the best of people with good motivation can lose focus if the numbers aren't put into the correct context. New Coke marketing disaster should help you remember that a small positive might not be representative of the overall community perception of the choices being made.

>

> Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development.

>

> ~ MO

>

 

Thanks and I sincerely hope the feedback from the community is taken into account, and not forgotten. I want GW2 to stick around and for your devs and Anet to continue to enjoy creating content for players.

[FOX.3582]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Greyraven.4258 said:

> > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

>

> The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

>

> Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

 

Here we go again. Yes it is like $30,- BUT it’s also around 500 IN-GAME GOLD!!!

 

Please leave if you don’t like it. We will be sure to welcome you back when you've experienced all those better games with better micro-transactions. Good luck...

[Nocturn.8904]

> @FOX.3582 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Greyraven.4258 said:

> > > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

> >

> > The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

> >

> > Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

>

> Here we go again. Yes it is like $30,- BUT it’s also around 500 IN-GAME GOLD!!!

>

> Please leave if you don’t like it. We will be sure to welcome you back when you've experienced all those better games with better micro-transactions. Good luck...

 

Feedback is the most important part of the developer/consumer relationship. Telling everyone who isn't 100% satisfied with the direction of the game to leave is thoroughly unhelpful and will actively make the game worse.

[Deathanizer.3716]

Is it just me or did Mike just basically say that Microtransactions aren't working?

 

If a big Microtransaction catalog isn't working anymore why don't you just raise the price of the expansion?

 

I mean, you just said it. Nobody buys separate things, they only buy big packs of things. T H E N _ W H A T _ I S _ T H E _ P O I N T _ O F _ M I C R O T R A N S A C T I O N S ?

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @Deathanizer.3716 said:

> Is it just me or did Mike just basically say that Microtransactions aren't working?

>

> If a big Microtransaction catalog isn't working anymore why don't you just raise the price of the expansion?

>

> I mean, you just said it. Nobody buys separate things, they only buy big packs of things. T H E N _ W H A T _ I S _ T H E _ P O I N T _ O F _ M I C R O T R A N S A C T I O N S ?

 

No, he said that style items generate significant revenue when sold in larger-ticket bundles or as single, higher-ticket items, and that style items sold at lower-ticket prices do not have the same success. Micro-transactions of non-style items were not part of his response.

 

As to XPac price... read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

 

F2P games get people in the door by offering the game for free. B2P games accept a smaller potential player pool in exchange for revenue from the box sales. Both models rely on the big spenders for most of their profits. The people who buy only the box get a game to play that they hopefully enjoy. They also fill out game numbers, and the big spenders would go elsewhere if the game were dead.

 

ANet was able to show a profit without selling big ticket items for a long time. However, the game population has declined, and many veteran players are capped as far as purchase of utility items like bank slots go. This has resulted in lower revenue which is readily apparent in NCSoft quarterly reports. As a result ANet has chosen to offer larger ticket items aimed specifically at bigger spenders as a means of generating that revenue. If that sales strategy is successful, they can continue to offer the boxed XPac followed by no cost DLC living season updates.

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

I posted this elsewhere but I'm too lazy to retype it so I copied it.

 

My main issue is that MO makes it sound like it's the big ticket spenders bankrolling the content. Where does that leave box buyers that don't buy gem store items is there money not valued, if so make the game F2P. Where does that leave me as someone that spends roughly $100 a month on gems but chooses to not spend it where their projections suggest it should be, does that make my money less appreciated since their marketing doesn't apply to me since I refuse to buy a 2000 gem mount ?

[Lambent.6375]

> @Deathanizer.3716 said:

> Is it just me or did Mike just basically say that Microtransactions aren't working?

>

> If a big Microtransaction catalog isn't working anymore why don't you just raise the price of the expansion?

>

> I mean, you just said it. Nobody buys separate things, they only buy big packs of things. T H E N _ W H A T _ I S _ T H E _ P O I N T _ O F _ M I C R O T R A N S A C T I O N S ?

 

People were complaining about the price of the last expasion.

 

Gem store items can be bought with gold, expansions can't. So I guess they decided to make things cheaper for people who normally don't use cash in the gem store?